¹ U.S. Department of Defense, 2022 National Defense Strategy of the United States of America: including the 2022 Nuclear Posture Review and the 2022 Missile Defense Review (Washington, D.C.: Department of Defense, October 2022), p. 2, media.defense.gov/2022/Oct/27/2003103845/-1/-1/1/2022-NATIONAL-DEFENSE-STRATEGY-NPR-MDR.PDF.

² National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence, Final Report: National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence (Washington, D.C.: National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence, 2021), p. 7, UNT Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc1851188/m2/1/high_res_d/Full-Report-Digital-1.pdf.

³ Military examples in this article: www.army.mil/article/154248/dull_dirty_dangerous_mission_send_in_the_robot_vehicle and www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/English-Edition-Archives/May-June-2017/Pros-and-Cons-of-Autonomous-Weapons-Systems/.

⁴ “Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems (LAWS),” Office for Disarmament Affairs, United Nations, www.un.org/disarmament/the-convention-on-certain-conventional-weapons/background-on-laws-in-the-ccw/.

⁵ This is in addition to other U.S. government initiatives, including from Congress, the White House, and agencies such as the National Institute of Standards and Technology, which are also developing regulatory frameworks for AI. All of these guidance documents will affect industry and thereby the technologies available to the DoD.

⁶ U.S. Department of Defense, Summary of the 2018 Department of Defense Artificial Intelligence Strategy: Harnessing AI to Advance Our Security and Prosperity (Arlington, Va.: U.S. Department of Defense, June 2018), p. 5, media.defense.gov/2019/Feb/12/2002088963/-1/-1/1/SUMMARY-OF-DOD-AI-STRATEGY.PDF.

⁷ C. Todd Lopez, “DOD Adopts 5 Principles of Artificial Intelligence Ethics,” DoD News, U.S. Department of Defense, February 25, 2020, www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/2094085/dod-adopts-5-principles-of-artificial-intelligence-ethics/.

⁸ DoD Responsible AI Working Council, U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Department of Defense Responsible Artificial Intelligence Strategy and Implementation Pathway (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Defense, June 2022), media.defense.gov/2022/Jun/22/2003022604/-1/-1/0/Department-of-Defense-Responsible-Artificial-Intelligence-Strategy-and-Implementation-Pathway.PDF.

⁹ Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, DoD Directive 3000.09, January 25, 2023, www.esd.whs.mil/portals/54/documents/dd/issuances/dodd/300009p.pdf.

¹⁰ There are many examples of the impacts of coordination between the policy and technical communities that cannot be detailed in this essay. They include the development of social media, the X-47B unmanned combat air system carrier, and the formulation of the New START Treaty.

¹¹ Technical interview questions included:

• –

  – Are there limits to the kinds of constraints the coder can write? If given the proper time and resources, can programmers build in norms/ethical considerations into the technology?

• –

  – What, if anything, are we losing because of ethical/policy constraints (costs, timeline, performance)?

• –

  – Learning systems will evolve; how do you create constraints for those types of systems?

Policy interview questions included:

• –

  – How do you get your information on laws, regulations, and treaties? How do they shape your autonomous weapons development?

• –

  – How do laws, regulations, and international treaties influence your autonomous system development?

• –

  – Are there success stories of policy positively influencing the development of a technology?

• –

  – What is the best mechanism by which the policy, technology, and warfighting communities can share their expertise to develop the most appropriate policy frameworks?

• –

  – How do defense primes and weapon systems developers approach balancing international partner needs with technological feasibility and exportability?

• –

  – Can you think of one good story and/or bad story of the policy and technology communities working together (or not working together) to improve an outcome or the regulation of the use of a technology?

¹² “Doing Diligence to Assess the Risks and Benefits of Life Sciences Gain-of-Function Research,” President Barack Obama, White House, October 17, 2014, obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2014/10/17/doing-diligence-assess-risks-and-benefits-life-sciences-gain-function-research.

¹³ “Statement on Funding Pause on Certain Types of Gain-of-Function Research,” NIH Director, National Institutes of Health, October 16, 2014, www.nih.gov/about-nih/who-we-are/nih-director/statements/statement-funding-pause-certain-types-gain-function-research; and Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Government Gain-of-Function Deliberative Process and Research Funding Pause on Selected Gain-of-Function Research Involving Influenza, MERS, and SARS Viruses, (Washington, D.C.: Department of Health and Human Services) October 17, 2014, www.phe.gov/s3/dualuse/documents/gain-of-function.pdf.

¹⁴ National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity, Recommendations for the Evaluation and Oversight of Proposed Gain-of-Function Research, (Bethesda, Md.: National Institute of Health) May 2016, osp.od.nih.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/NSABB_Final_Report_Recommendations_Evaluation_Oversight_Proposed_Gain_of_Function_Research.pdf.

¹⁵ “Doing Diligence to Assess the Risks and Benefits of Life Sciences Gain-of-Function Research.”

¹⁶ Ibid.

¹⁷ Frances Sharples, Jo Husbands, Anne-Marie Mazza, Audrey Thevenon, and India Hook-Barnard, “Gain-of-Function Research: Background and Alternatives,” ch. 3 in Potential Risks and Benefits of Gain-of-Function Research: Summary of a Workshop (Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, April 13, 2015), www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK285579/.

¹⁸ Ibid.

¹⁹ United States, National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity, Recommendations for the Evaluation and Oversight of Proposed Gain-of-Function Research.

²⁰ Ibid.

²¹ Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Foreign Customer Guide (Washington, D.C.: Department of Defense, July 15, 2018).

²² McGinn, Jerry and Roche, Michael T., A “Build Allied” Approach to Increase Industrial Base Capacity (Fairfax, Va.: Greg and Camille Baroni Center for Government Contracting, George Mason University, June 22, 2023)Google Scholar.

²³ The original eight allied countries include the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Denmark, The Netherlands, Norway, Italy, Turkey, and Australia. In July 2019, the DoD removed Turkey from the development program.

²⁴ Interview with Vice Admiral Mathias W. “Mat” Winter, former director, Joint Strike Fighter Program, Office of the Secretary of Defense, conducted by authors (July 25, 2023 via Microsoft Teams).

²⁵ Ibid.

²⁶ Hehs, Eric, “F-35 Lightning Drag Chute,” Code One 31, no. 1 (August 13, 2014)Google Scholar, Lockheed Martin, www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=138.

²⁷ Thomas Newdick, “Israel's Specially-Built F-35I Test Jet Just Touched Down In-Country,” Drive, updated November 11, 2020, www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/37579/israels-specially-built-f-35i-test-jet-just-touched-down-in-country.

²⁸ IEEE Global Initiative on Ethics of Autonomous and Intelligent Systems, Ethically Aligned Design: A Vision for Prioritizing Human Well-Being with Autonomous and Intelligent Systems, 1st ed. (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, 2019), standards.ieee.org/content/ieee-standards/en/industry-connections/ec/ autonomous-systems.html.

²⁹ This might be modeled on activities under the National Nanotechnology Initiative, which has supported the development of safety standards and public educational materials, or on the structure of the F-35 program office.